Can a great system make a mediocre recording sound good?

In a word: heavily mixed music (rock/pop) badly recorded cannot be redeem in any way...

In case of jazz and classical, the first lived  acoustical perspective, even if badly recorded, can be improved and made acoustically interesting by improving this second acoustical perspective : your room/system  translation ...

I think I said the same thing as @mahgister ha!

Yes we are on the same page...But you dont said exactlky the same thing...

But you add something very important which is one of the reason i did not listen rock music or pop... Unnatural studio mixing sound...

Then my observation from my last post was lacking this very important observation of yours that has nothing to do with the relation between an audio system and the room : the unnatural mixing technique in popular music... i forgot that most people listen much rock/pop ... 😁😊

You reminded me, and you are right to do so, that rock/pop is not classical nor jazz acoustically speaking...

I do not thought about that because i never listen rock/pop at all... 😁😊

My post is an example of a statement which cannot be completely right and can be misleading  because we dont listen all and everyone the same music genre...Then i correct here my last post because it can be acoustically misleading...

Then i will rewrite my post adding this : If some "bad" recording sound worst after you improve a piece of gear or the relation with the room, it is because gear or the relation with the room is not optimal at all...

But my observation is valid to all "naturally" recorded music with not much mixing...

In the case of pop/rock i dont think that my system room will improve a "bad" recording at all, in the contrary they will be worst, because it is the "bad" tricks of the mix which will become more disturbinglay audible in rock/pop music instead of the "natural" acoustical cues which are always improved by an optimized system/room relation in the case of a jazz or classical record album...

In this case only, "bad" recording may sound more acoustically interesting instead of worse when we improved the relation between the system/room....There is way less mixing imbalance to disturb our listening in jazz and classical...Almost all instruments are acoustical instruments not electrical one save by exception...

Then thanks for your post very important correction about mine...

All musical genres are not acoustically equal indeed....

my best to you ...

Most of these are dimensional cues and reverberations of the instruments, most ‘good sounding’ recordings isolate everything to remove any unwanted reverberations then add it back artificially. Musicians in a real room and all those reverberations actually sound good, so almost all blues and jazz and classical sounds fine. Rock is the culprit.

A great system makes a mediacore recording sound more mediacore.

It is not so simple... Why?

Because there is the sound perception,

And with it the musical evaluation...

When the recording is "bad", you lost many information which are confused and missing ...But in a very good audio system in a very well controlled room, you will, you easrs/brain will decipher more acoustical cues from the recording and with the help of the room acoustic control, the recording improved acoustic translation will reveal a bit  "more"  about the way the recording is flawed and what is missing or confused...

Then the recording will not be perceived to be more  merely only mediocre but in the opposite more "interesting" and more informational acoustically .... Then you will forget more easily the acoustic because your music evaluation will be more easy...

A good system ONLY in an ordinary room perhaps will make mediocre recording more mediocre why?

Because good audio systen in uncontrolled room are often too much  "analysing" and the acoustical details kill the musical forest... But the same system in a controlled and well treated room relatively to it, will reveal more about soundstage, imaging, dynamic, timbre perception and even the ratio LEV/ASW will be better... Then your attention will focus more easily on the music ...

The acoustic perception being improved, musical evaluation will become easier...

Then in conclusion: If an audio system made mediocre recording always worst, of two things one : your system is too analytic or badly flawed or of your system is good but the room is not well treated nor well mecanichally controlled and tuned for this specfic audio system....A good system in a bad room is easily harsh sounding, or too analytic, too resolving and not enough in phase with the room acoustic bass will not be ideal nor clear for example etc....

In a word, a good system in a well optimized room dont make "bad" recording good one, but make "bad" recording " interesting" one, more easy to decipher then it will be  way more easier for your focus and attention  to shift  on the music forgetting what is distorted  information only or missing  in  the sound...

The best audio system is not revealing "per se" ...

Revealing of what?

Details?

A good audio system reveal the WHOLE through the parts and the PARTS through the whole...

Focusing on microdetails for their sake is the opposite of a good sound...It is fatiguing and not musical...

Many costly system in bad room sound like microscope...

I prefer my 500 bucks system in my audio room...

 ROOM Acoustic rule,  not details or sounds  plankton coming from gear ability to be a microscope for the ears...

I listen musicians not details...

I had try to explain that for longtime but i could not be clear like you are WITH PRECISE RECORDING EXEMPLES...

And your experience confirm mine, than i am not "nut" nor alone...

Or perhaps we are two "nuts" for the price of one here?

😁😊

I have found that a better way of putting it has to include ‘….the accuracy of instrument and voice reproduction in the specific venue of the actual recording’ for the simple fact that almost every recording venue subtly (or unsubtly) changes the sound signatures of voice and instrumentation.

Very important observation thanks

I am of the belief that the only truly bad recordings are the ones that have undergone so much post-production sound engineering so as to present parodies of the instruments, and of voices.

verry well explained thanks...

My list of ‘poor’ recordings became eroded so much over time, I began to realise that in the world of unoverly sound engineered albums, there are actually very few recordings I should dismiss as bad, for the reason my sound/room system may not (yet) be good enough to playback the subtlest cues of reverberation, decay and atmospheric quality that we call realism. It is for this reason that I said a truly poor recording is very difficult to identify.

You explained way better than me the fact that better the system is and better the speakers room is controlled alleged "bad" recordings become "interesting" yes and the numbers of alleged "bad " recordings decrease because our GEAR/room improve and manifest ALL acoustic recorded cues in the acoustic language of our room ...

This confirm what i speak about already:

There is no perfect reproduction in recording engineering, but A TRANSLATION of some acoustic original perspective and trade-off choices by the recording engineer INTO another acoustic context : the speakers/room/ears relation...

Resolving power of gear is not synonymus of better sound either because all other acoustic cues matter also not only frequencies resolution ....

Thanks for this marvellous post...

I owned 8 headphones, and i modified with success all of them...

But my speakers/room beat them anyway... Why?

Because headphones ALSO own a "room"... The shell reflect absorb and diffuse sound like a room did...

Headphones also vibrates like the gear vibrate , suffer from too high electrical noise level floor like the gear and they had problem of their own with soundstaging, bass and dynamic... The ratio between crosstalk and crossfeed cannot be solved in the same way than speakers...But in the two cases it is a problem to solve...

It is the reason why after many years i give speakers another try...But this time i experimented with acoustic,vibration control and created my devices to lessen electrical noise...

Then headphones are very good solution because it is simpler solution ... But not a perfect solution for all....

But I might add that I also do a lot of listening on headphones, where those environmental factors do not come into consideration, and you can certainly tell quite easily whether it’s a ratty sounding source or not....

You are confused here...

FIRST : Acoustic control of a room improve ANY system to the roof...

Lower cost one and higher cost one...

SECOND : no room acoustic will transform an audio system of less good design in a better design...

THIRD : the distance between a relatively good basic audio system and a higher costly one is not what most people think ... WHY ? Because they had NEVER listen to a basic good system in a controlled room... To improve the system in their head the only way is to throw money on a top high-end design...Yes the top high end design will be better BUT NOT BY THE HUGE MARGIN PEOPLE HOPE FOR...

FOUR: the goal is to improve the way any recording can give the best : it is acoustic the best way IF WE HAD ALREADY SETTLE OURSELF ON A CHOSEN AUDIO SYSTEM RELAQTIVELY TO OUR WALLET ...

We dont discuss in the sky here theoretically and dont put simplistic argument like a 50,000 bucks amplifier will make a greater positive difference than my 2,000 bucks Sansui AU 7700 in the SAME ROOM ( paid 50 bicks yes i am lucky) For sure the more costly amplifier will do a better job in the same room ...

The main point is we must invest few bucks in acoustic generally if you are not sure we CAN give 50,000 bucks for an upgrade...And even if we can pay for a costly gear and that is my point, the acoustic control PROBABLY will be a greater choice and improvement if the amplifier we already have is very good...

Is it not simple?

The trouble with this "it’s not the system it’s the room" argument is that the good recordings and the mediocre recordings are both being played in the same room. Moreover, it is the same room as my upgraded-from system. I fail to see what difference the room would make in comparing one recording to another in the same room.

For me it depends on what makes a mediocre recording mediocre, by the way, I’d judge a large proportion of recordings as mediocre. I’ve found mediocre recordings that formerly had timbre, sound staging and/or were less resolving have become much more listenable. A highly resolving system with more natural timbre or tonality will uncover information previously unheard, and presents recordings in a more forgiving manner. Recordings with these defects become more involving.

 

Quashed micro dynamics is one defect that’s been heightened by a more resolving system. I find far too many digitally mastered recordings to suffer this malady, I can only take these recording in small doses, consecutive plays of these recordings causes me to lose interest, have to return to known high quality recordings to return to involving listening session.

 

Poor recordings remain poor, no help can be found for these.

Great post and i concur with each words....

I find it to be opposite. My really good system makes bad recordings almost unlistenable, It will make average recordings some better some average.

Our perspective are not exactly the same, but it is related also to the genre of music we listen to...

Most of my bad recordings in jazz or classical are more listenable in my system even if they stay bad...

But pop or rock may be exception.... The jimi Hendrix two albums i refer above are unlistenable because of compression...the mix in studio is horrible work...I hate too much mixed in studio music... I prefer natural instruments in natural acoustic room with minimal mix ... 

The better your system is, especially imaging, the more it will reveal the great, good, bad, ugly.

The more you experience excellent imaging, the more you are aware of problems.

Yes it is true also in my experience...

But it is true not only with imaging,but with all other acoustic characteristic...

For example if your system give you a good listener envelopment, in some well recorded album you will be AMONG the musician on the scene...They may be around you... It will not be the case in heavily compressed music... It will be horrible... But what is hoorible on a bad audio system, stay bad on a good audio system but can become "interesting" because it take a new acoustic  meaning ... You "see" more...

A poor recording will always remain as such. What you get with a better balanced system is that even a poor recording would have a meaning. No it will not sound good but it would be easier to follow.

Thanks very much!

You explained it better than me...

I never spoke english only read it and i read only science or philosophy, it is why my expression is "square"....

All systems are imperfect. That is they cannot perfectly reproduce the signal fed into them. Therefore the sound that comes out will be judged either ’better’ or ’worse’ at reproducing that signal. The systems that are ’better’ will be improving the sound of the (poor) recording.

You are right here....

Therefore a system could be designed that would process poor recordings to sound like good ones.

But sorry for me you are wrong here completely...

A bad recortding erased by bad choices of the recording engineer too much of   the "acoustic cues" by too much manipulation or too much effects added, the original acoustic lived event is lost in the recording process... This is why we call it a bad recording...

No audio system will change that ever...But a top audio system will make EVIDENT the trade-off choices of the recording engineer and will even reveal what has been add to traffick the sound acoustic of the original lived event...

A bad recording stay bad but MAY become interesting acoustically way more listenable because "interesting" now even if they stay what they are : bad...

What I have found is exemplified by my run in with Jimi Hendrix ‘Are you experienced?’. When I play it on the system I have today (for nostalgia sake) it’s almost unlistenable … harsh, bright, compressed etc …

I am not familiar with this recording...

I listen a youtube copy just now... it is VERY compressed yes but not harsh nor bright on my system....

mine reveal the compression only...I dont like the compression at all...

(69) Are You Experienced? - YouTube

This other version is worst...more compressed...Neverr harsh or bright...

Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced? (Iowa 1968) - Bing video

One of The two worst recording among my near 9000 recording.... oufff...

I never listen rock, pop or commercial music tough...

I feel it unlistenable even if less bad recorded...Sorry...

listening that remind me why?

But it was better to listen Hendrix on the original FIRST of his recording when i had 16 years old... I never forget ... I remember Cream also vividly...The sound impression...

Therefore a system could be designed that would process poor recordings to sound like good ones.  But the changes made would render the performance different from the original recording.

It is not my experience....

Bad recordings stay bad... But they become listenable and very interesting now...We listen more to the original acoustical cues and we detect more what was bad INTO the recording process...

A good system put you more in touch with the acoustic process used by the recording engineer...

There is still lots to hear in even a mediocre recording and a better system will do a better job of delivering what’s there.  That means a better listening experience and a better listening experience means the mediocre recording just got better. 

Exactly!

I will add  that the mediocre recording get acoustically more "interesting" and now reveal more of the original acoustical cue choices  even if he stay mediocre...We listen to it more easily, we stay with the music in it forgetting the bad recording now...

I've found that most 'poor' recordings only sound poor because the system/room I was hearing them in was not good enough to translate the acoustics of the space the recording was made in.

Exactly.....

An audio system can improved by increasing the details and being more revelatory can make some bad recording worse because the sound shape become better cutted...

It is normal...

But the more improving effect, the ultimate improvement, toward a balance and more neutral impressions all over the frequencies will make the bad recording no more worse but more "interesting" by his abilty to manifest not details in greatest numbers not clarity, but naturalness of timbre experience, a more realistic palette of colors and their shades...

Then all recordings manifested new acoustic cues coming from the recording itself, bad records stay bad but are more listenable...Best recorded albums stay the best but reach a new peak of effortless realism...Best records and bad one gain weight ...

The fact that good recording sound way better does not contradict the fact that the less wellrecording begins to be interesting by the way you detect new acoustical cues... it is no more only a mess...

No room system can make bad good...

But a good room /system will make bad interesting no more a mess...

I listened for example now with more pleasure to the very bad recording of Scriabin opus by Michael Ponti a musical marvel in horrible recorded way, but now it is more interesting even if it stay bad recording ...You guess more about the subtle touch and Italian virtuosity of the pianist... you read more between the acoustical cues and line so to speak...

Same phenomenon with the bad recorded Sofronitsky...

I've found the opposite - the better the system, the more it reveals how bad/mediocre the source was.... Good sounding sources sound even better, though.... 

Then you lack something in your acoustic tuning or system tuning...

A balanced room /system must be neutral in a way which will make it able to reveal for the better all there is to be revealed acoustically...

I perfectly distinguish between bad and good recording , but i enjoy listening them all... Sound is no more an obstacle anyway for the music...

A well tune room with a relatively good system will not transform bad recording in good one ...

But ALL recordings will become interesting acoustically, because you will be able to appreciate all acoustical cues chosen by the recording engineer and now manifested ...Because your susyen/room is able to do it...

I listen to all my music now with pleasure, bad recording or better one...

I dont speak about artificial horrendous studio commercial trafficked sounds here... For listening to that you will need the worst system possible ...

I spoke about jazz, classical and other "naturally" recorded relatively non trafficked  music styles...